but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and
and all against Infant-baptism and being shortly after upon some occasion at Oxford I took the opportunity to examine his Quotatitions in the Publick Library and upon searching found it so fallacious a Piece that I thought my self bound in Conscience for the honour of Truth and Love to my Country to make discovery thereof that the Credulity of illiterate and well-meaning Persons might not be imposed upon by such Forgery 2. I have been somewhat provoked to bear Testimomony to the Lawfulness of Baptizing the Children of Believers by the Audacity of one that sometimes preacheth amongst the Antipedobaptists who told me to my Face that I could say nothing for Infant Baptism to whom I said but little as judging him uncapable of understanding the strength of an Argument 3. After I had communicated a few Sheets to some Learned Men they did album calculum addere and incired me to proceed 4. Because no body else had published any thing to confront this daring Champion and I see no cause to repent of my Undertaking unless it be that I have not defended the Truth as it ought to be I was never before engaged in these Olympian Games nor do I delight in such Exercises and do find by experience that these Polemical Contests are but barren things and cannot but much approve of the Saying of Zuarez who though a Jesuite professed he found more benefit in that time which he did every day set apart for the examining the State of his Soul than in all the Voluminous Books of Controversies which he had written I would now advertise the Reader that my Answer refers to Mr. Danvers his First Book it being in the Press before his 2d Edition came to hand in which I find no Retracting or Rectifying Mistakes but in stead thereof a numerous Addition of more some of which I have taken notice of in the Recapitulation of the Magdeburgensian History concerning Infant Baptism affixt to my Answer There are many egregious Faults I charge Mr. Danvers with which are made good in the Answer For I quote the Chapter and Page of the Authors that he abuseth that so those who are Scholars if they please may see whether I wrong him The Books are extant and we have no Index Expurgatorius here in England to relieve him 1. He hath much injured that famous History of the Magdiburgenses in very many places by misrepresenting what they say as that they tell us that in the first Century the Apostles baptized Only the Aged which is false for he hath himself added the Word Only as is shewn Capt. 7. Part. 1. pag. 2. of our Answer Then he saith they tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body into water was changed into Sprinkling in the 3. Cent. See this pag. 113. and cites the Magdeburgenses for it Cent. 3. pag. 125 126. where they say no such thing but the contrary and gives Cyprian's Testimony for it who is calculated to live in the days of those that saw the Apostles that Baptism is valid whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling Cent. 3. c. 4. and Chap. 7. part 1. pag. 8. of the Answer Look the Examination of the Magdiburgensiam History and there you have the rest of his Misrepresentations 2. After the same manner hath he serv'd the Fathers both of the Greek and Latino Churches Quoting some Passages out of them as if they had been for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants when not one of them was so no not Tertullian or Nazianzen absolutely but both for it in case of danger of death yea the latter without respect to that See Chap. 7. Part. 1. pag. 13. of the Answer and the 3. Century in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer There be two ways he takes to blind the Reader with respect to the Fathers 1. By Traducing that which is spoken in reference to Pagans and misapplying of it against Infant Baptism thus he serves Chrysostom and Austin p. 76. of his Treatise whom he brings for his eminent Witnesses for Believers Baptism and then again the same men to be for Infant Baptism pag. 121. of his Treatise See how this Contradiction is reconciled in our Answer to his 2d Chap. part 2. About Infants Baptism 2. By curtailing and leaving out part of the Sentence as pag. 65. where he cites these words of Bazil Must the faithful be sealed with Baptism Faith must precede and go before There Mr Danvers stops whereas he should have gone on with what follows Quid de infantibus ais num illos baptizemus Maximè These are the next Lines to what we have above What say you to Infants which know nor good nor evil must we baptize them Yea c. See Chap. 7. part 1. p. 13. of the Answer 3. The Councils have no better measure from him for he quotes those 3. the Bracaren that of Constantinople he writes it Constance and that of Toletan All which he produceth for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants p. 78. of his Treatise and quotes the Magdiburgenses for it Cent. 7. p. 146. Whereas they give us to understand that they were for Infant Baptism Chap. 7. part 1 pag. 29 30. of our Answer See this more fully in the Recapitulation affixt to the Answer under Century 7. 4. He brings in the Doctors of the Romish Church very ridiculously as eminent Witnesses for Believers baptism that is in opposition to Infant Baptism or else he says nothing As for Instance Haimo Rabanus an Abbot Remigius a Monk Smarugdus c. See how little truth there is in this Chap. 7. part 1. p. 33. of the Answer and much more fully in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer under Century 8 9 10. Here our Author hath used his wonted subtilty in quoting some passages out of these Popish Doctors for Believers Baptism meant by them only in respect of Pagans 5. By the same Artifice are ignorant persons deluded with the sayings of the Schoolmen which were so great and stiff assertors of Infant-baptism that they ascrib'd too much to it See how we have discovered the Authors Sophistry Chap. 7. part 1. pag. 34. of our Answer But more fully this is spoken to in the Recapitulation under the 12th Cent. 6. His great Witnesses against Infant-baptism namely Waldenses Novatians and Donatists and Ancient Britains fail him 1. For the Waldenses he hath brought 4 Confessions as against it when they have not a word of that import as any ordinary Reader may perceive See pag. 282 283. of his Treatise and how fully we have made it appear by other Confessions that they were expresly for it See Chap. 7. part 2. of the Answer 2. Neither were the Novatians for it though they denyed Original Sin and were for Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Hereticks though there were few greater than themselves and therefore Novatus the Head of them was condemned by 66. wishops in the year 255. Fox Act.
they shall be grafted into the Church again as before for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 134. At their first grafting in they and their children were grafted in at their casting out they and their children were broken off and when they shall be taken in again they and their children shall be taken in This Mr. Tombs himself grants that the Jews and their seed were rejected together yea and that they shall be taken in together pag. 66. of his answer Thus then we argue if it must be so with them it must be so with believing Gentiles now or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches one of the Jews holy Fathers and children another of the Gentiles who have only personal priviledges none for their seed which is an absurd conceit as Mr. Geree speaks and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still contrary to that Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities which are very numerous which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers The Author adds It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches or the Epistles themselves for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints c. I answer First that this is a meer Paralogism for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling were none other but those or such like them concern'd in the Epistles What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers are they unconcerned in them This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints but saith Bunian a more moderate man although an Antipaedobaptist If this be true there is vertue indeed and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptisme For if that shall take away the Epistles and consequently the whole Bible from all that are not Baptized he means after their mode of dipping being grown Christians then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition Would to God saith he of his Brethren they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others Nè autem existiment Corinthii hanc Epistolam ita ipsis propriam esse ut ad alios non pertineat addit Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri Piscator in locum and appropriate to themselves and that for observing a circumstance c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul and turns him to St. Paul Rom. 16.5 and to the first Epistle written to Corinth and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship that they might have fellowship with the Church Joh. 1.1 2 3 4. Secondly we grant the Epistles were directed some of them to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship directly and immediately and to their children if they had any and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages remotely and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present and the children when come to years of discretion A Father that hath several children some grown up to understanding others Minors or Babes may direct a Book or Epistle to them all Whatsoever was writ was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration whereof their Children were a part and yet they were ignorant Babes and could not understand any thing or perform any duties But let it be considered that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations yet being within Gods Nursery and School they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty than Aliens and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham that he knew he would teach his children and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Infantia when he was an Infant or little Child 3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles To the Saints Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus chosen adopted which cannot saith our Author be spoken of Infants To this it may be thus replyed 1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children some not 2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints either as looking upon them all as such i.e. truely regenerate for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint but this could not be for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically because he judged the most of them to be such and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori from the better part 3. He calls them Saints by calling i.e. by the preaching of the word and so we acknowledge Infants are not and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints 1. Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints or holy and 't is the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers it hints thus much to us that in Saint Pauls account who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling Nor are they only foederally holy but they may be also inherently sanctified saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen They may receive the new birth and we say more they must receive it if saved Job 3.5 It is much controverted concerning the Text whether it intends grown persons or any persons of whatsoever age or sex but the Original if heeded would put an end to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except one be born including all ages all sexes Children are so polluted in their first birth that they can never get to Heaven by that and therefore what the first birth cannot a second must saith Dr. Taylor And if it be objected that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own which are to be wrought by and in them that have the use of Reason besides that this as the Learned Doctor speaks is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth in which the person to be born is wholly passive and hath put into him the Principle
we should have given precedency upon Acts 22.16 Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus cum sua sobole in Christi Membris c. The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest I will name but one instà r omnium and that is the famous Doctor Vsher in his Body of Divinity pag. 415. The outward Elements saith he are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel for Infants their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession c. Lastly the Author is at Mr. Baxter again quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake as if he had intended those words against Infants Church-Membership when he clears himself so fully in the point as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Disputations and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism To conclude this I cannot but pitty the Author because of that self-conceited scornful Genius that appears in what follows altogether unbecoming a Christian and I think all modest and sober spirits cannot but be extreamly scandalized to see a man pretending to be for the truth of Christ so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him Surely he must needs be furnisht with more than an ordinary measure of self-conceit that doth so Magisterially condemn not only the Ancients but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days sparing none neither Prelate Presbyter nor Independent Have patience Reader and thou shalt hear a little of it How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism for six hundred years c. Have a care Sir since you swell at this rate least you burst Austin tells you Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit The Church always had it always held Infant Baptisme And Doctor Taylor a person whom you seem to honour much says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World that from the Apostles days inclusively to this very day ever refused to baptize children excepting of late amongst your selves So well to observe the Order viz. first to Baptize and then to Communicate and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants he hath taken from Master Tombes his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercitation pag. 29. for there it is and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuite who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued six hundred years in the Church But Master Geree well òbserves that is not nor ought to be taken of the first six hundred years for it appears by Maldonate's expression calling it Sententiam the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent that it had if not its rise yet its force to become common from them Not only Protestants but Papists themselves condemn that of communicating Infants as an errour yea as I remember the Councel of Trent it self And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptizing the Infants of Believers that page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized The Protestant Reformers are more blind and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper And how much worse saith he in the Protestant Reformers that so lamentalby miss it both in the due Order and right Subjects also which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting children to Baptism and Membership but not to the Supper A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt and let him know that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership are inconsistent with the Word but so is Infant-Communion not only because God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of namely the exercise of actual grace in examination discerning the Lords Body and remembring the death of Christ but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacrament as to take and eat the Bread and drink Wine Lastly this Hagio-Mastix lasheth the Independents which do worse than all the rest and doth more grosly erre in point of Order in admitting them to Baptism but neither to Membership nor the Supper But I find the Proverb is true Bernardus non videt omnia even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard is ignorant of some things Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen where he shall find the Independents Judgment jump with Master Jesseys in his discourse upon Romans 14.1 you have it reprinted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entituled Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers Consider saith Master Jessey whether such a practice hath a command or example that persons must be joyned into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism For John Baptized many yet he did not Baptize some into one Church and some into another nor all into one particular Church And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch or the Apostle the Jaylor and his house This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is constituted by Baptism and formally united as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling as appears by his Epistle to Master Pauls sorry Reflections lately Printed So Master Tombes of old in his sixth Argument Exercitat where he inveighs against the Independents as the Author doth here and saith That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Member of Christ and that Church To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Pastor makes this reply viz. But what Church doth Master Tombes mean If he means of the Universal Church I yield that he is exhibited a visible Christian But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity I altogether deny it for these reasons 1. Those Baptized Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Disciples 2. Cornelius his and the Jaylors Families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the form of that thing 3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But Baptism is common to make men only visible Christians in General Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And then
Cardinal of Ragusi It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism they only were to be Baptized who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture that a new-born Infant was Baptized who could neither believe with the heart to Justification nor confess with the mouth to Salvation yet nevertheless saith he the Church hath appointed it H. D. Whereas some Object that Bellarmine and others do also bring Scripture for it Becan Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers that some things may be proved out of Scripture when the Church's sence is first heard about the Interpretation thereof for so he saith it is concerning Infants-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 But the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith hath not perfect Baptism H. D. Dr. Field Lib. 4. p. 375. saith That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines H. D. Prideaux controv Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism saith he rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field I. T. i.e. John Tombes In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi it is asserted Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus qui nec corde credit ad justitiam nec ore confitetur adsalutem inter fideles credentes computetur nibilominus Ecclesia ita determinavit statuit c. And in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine and others do bring Scripture for it Becan Manual Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura quando constat de vero legitimo Scripturae sensu So he saith it is concerning Infant-Baptism which is proved from John 3.5 but that the sense whereby to prove it is only manifest by Tradition I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men an Infants-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop layd on hands which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent that an Infant for that he wanteth instruction in Faith therefore hath not perfect Baptism I. T. Dr. Field of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any express Precept that they should do so Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest yet is not this so received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it I. T. Dr ' Prideaux Fasci Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey Now to all this we have said enough before as to the Substance of it and I love not needless repetitions only let me mind you with this That though Papists and others attribute too much to the custom of the Church or Tradition yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237 viz. Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical That Infants were Baptized I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him in his Letter of Resolution Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants Sec. 104. pag. 277. where having before spoken of what sort of Traditions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches he then adds Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry whether the Baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ or Practice Apostolical And if it do we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition and if it do not we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea or inferring our conclusion And because the way of satisfying this enquiry is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis the Institution of Christ and Practice of the Apostles it will be unreasonable to do this any farther save only upon a brief Recapitulation to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian Whether first by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptizing of Proselytes Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men The Learned Mr. Selden Light-foot speak the same which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes as is before shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth others Chap. 1. and Secondly by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice or hinderance to their coming to him that is to their Proselytism that he affirms them to be the pattern of those Though Children are brought to him by others yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made of whom his Kingdom is to be made up and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such for he Baptized not at all Mark 10.16 Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism and distinctly Preparative to it they that were by Christ afforded that cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism than of that And Thirdly by the express Words of the Apostle that their Children are Holy interpreted by the Context so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients that are found to speak of this matter without any one pretended to dissent that this was the Practice of the Apostles Whether I say these four things being put together the truth of each of
the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind and determine our Practice to this or that for seeing the word he useth is indifferent for both he would have left us some light either from precept or example which way he would have Sacramental This Assumption is confirm'd by this that no-where is it expressed that it was done by Dipping yea in some it is more than probable that it was not viz. Act. 2.41 there being in one day 3000 Baptized which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping So Act. 10.47 there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping Yea Peters phrase can any Man forbid Water imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling but not for Dipping Also Act. 16.33 There is a Man all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison and in the night at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had but easily for Sprinkling CHAP. VII Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last THe first that we shall mention saith the Author is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century Reply 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years as it appears upon record for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death and 't is probable Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism when he wrote his Book he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John and yet as early days as these were Children were then Baptized for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswading them not to be over-hasty in the doing it Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants aswel as those of riper years which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith Tertullian lived in the 3d Century Irenaeus contra Haeretic Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false for Irenaeus who lived in the second Century makes mention of it Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case is so far from being excellent that it is contemptible and not to be regarded as may appear by two Reasons First Because he was very corrupt and unsound in his judgment P. Martyr loc com Clas 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo he was fallen from the Church and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism because of his dissent because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it how much less is this authority to be valued when so corrupt that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick The Magdeburg Divines whom the Author makes so much use of give us a Catalogue of his Naevi or errors As 1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere ascribe unto God Grosseness or Fleshiness 2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode periculose unsafely and dangerously 3. That he condemned second marriages ut stupra as Whoredoms 4. That he brought in and augmented many filthy Ceremonies in the Church which he borrowed from the Montanists as anointing the body after Baptism c. 5. And lastly though they mention many other gross errors he affirms in his Book de Baptismo that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptize Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus and none must do it but by his leave Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority and in case of extremity that is when one is like to dye and in the want of a Minister it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants rather than that they should dye without it now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent is this because his arguments are so poor and weak that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly and shewed so much artifice herein leaving out somethings that are most gross that some who have weak heads and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism will think Tertullian and he were of one mind both against it and that on very good grounds 1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not c. It is true saith Tertullian the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. c. Tertullian was of a strange opinion then they repeate those weak passages before mentioned As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it inviting them to come Let them come saith Christ though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child or Infant with Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Luke the exactest Historian new-born Babes or sucking Children that are carried in Arms and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him brought in all likelyhood by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith as appears by this because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ and for this Christ would have them come
Romish Ceremonies used in Baptism as Exorcism Chrysm c. but not against Infant-Baptism itself Another Citation is out of an Ancient Confession Artic. 11. The words are We esteem for an Abomination and as Antichristian all Humane Inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit And in their Ancient Catechism Perin de Doct. de Vaud Liv. 1.168 169. When Humane Traditions are approved for Gods Ordinances then is he Worshipped in vain Is 19. Matt. 15. Which is done when grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments without Faith and Truth This also is insignificant to the purpose for which the Author quotes it and doth not in the least touch Infant-Baptism It is a good Testimony against Humane Traditions and they tell us what they mean which is done say they when Grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and 't is one of the Popish Errors we know that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato it is also a good Testimony against Compulsion to the Sacraments and that wicked practice of the Spaniards in forcing the Indians to be Baptized and whoever shall compel ignorant and scandalous persons to receive the Lords Supper Lastly we have something brought out of their ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist writ 1120. And if we can find nothing there against our Practice then may we say of this Antagonist Promisit montes nascitur ridieulus mus The words of that Treatise are That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had And here at last by good hap we have the word Children named but not a jot serving the Author's design for they do not hereby except against Childrens Baptism but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it for whether it be in Children or grown Persons it is an Antichristian or Popish Tenent to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism and this is that before mentioned that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato By what hath been said any unprejudiced Reader may see how meanly the Author hath acquitted himself in the beginning of his undertaking to prove the Waldenses against Infant-Baptism from their publick Confessions of Faith and 't is not unlikely we shall find him as defective in what follows We have seen much confidence in the man but not a grain of proof and 't is impossible any mans belief should be shaken by what he hath hitherto faid touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism 2. His second proof is the Witness of the eminent and leading Men. The first he begins with is the Famous Beringarius of Turain in Anjou and he quotes the Magdeburgenses Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. That Beringarius did in the time of Leo the 9th about the year 1049. publickly maintain his Heresies which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Baptism to little ones Now we must have to do with Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombe's Praecursor Examen p. 20. Reply 1. That Beringarius was a famous Champion for the Truth against Popish Errors and Superstitions is beyond all dispute but still 't is questionable whether he was against Infant-Baptism Why saith the Author the Magdeburgenses tell us so that is 4 Protestant Divines that drew up the History of the Church Here the incautelous Reader is in danger of a snare for those Divines accuse him not of this but only tell us what the Popish records speak of him Beringarius say the Magdeburgenses maintained his Heresies which they that is the Papists set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism who being such false accusers may very well be excepted against as insufficient evidence We know what Calumnies they have cast upon those eminent Reformers Luther Calvin Beza that lived nearer our times what errors they charge them with both Intellectual and Moral as if they had been very Heretical in judgment and men of debaucht lives they have their witnesses too more than a Iury to justify all their malicious charges Books written by divers Authors enough to make up a considerable Library If we must credit them against one why not against all the Testimony is the same 2. Since this instance of Beringarius is taken out of Tombe's let us hear what answer Mr. Marshal gave him pag. 65. of his defence of Infant-Baptism It is true saith he that Deoduinus Leodienses took it up as a common fame upon his credit Guitmond a Popish Bishop relates it that Beringarius opposed the Corporal presence in the Eucharist and the Baptism of little ones Usher de Success Cap. 7. Sect. 37. but saith Bishop Vsher in his Succession of the Church in so many Synods beld against Beringarius we never find any thing of this nature laidto his charge and Bishop Vsher farther adds that to him it appears that they who in those days were charged to hold that Baptism did not parvulis proficere ad salutem held nothing but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace ex opere operato And indeed in those Popish times to deny the greasy Ceremony of Chrism was ground enough for a charge of denying Infant-Baptism as you shall hear suddenly Next we have an impertinent citation out of Clark's Martyrology where it is said that God raised up Beringarius who did boldly and faithfully preach and witness against Popish errors whereupon the Gospellers were called Beringarians for above an hundred years after but Clark gives no hint that any of these Gospellers were against Infant-Baptism but relates the quite contrary for saith he in the same place and in the words following what is before quoted by the Author They Baptized their Children taught them the Belief and ten Commandements and carefully kept the Sabbath day upon which Lewis the 12th of France that had been otherwise informed but now satisfied of the truth of their faith and practice by his commissioners and Confessors said and bound it with an Oath that they were honester than he and his Catholick Subjects To as little purpose as the former is that he quotes out of Dr. Vsher in his Succession of the Church out of Thuanus Dr. Usher That Bruno Archbishop of Tryers did expel several Beringarians that had spread his Doctrine in several of those Belgick Countries and that several of them upon examination did say that Baptism did not profit Children unto Salvation And well might they say so all Protestants are of the same judgment and in the same we have Dr. Vsher's Paraphrase on it nec aliud videntur negavisse c. They seemed saith he to deny nothing else but this that Baptism doth not confer Grace by the work done and so we have done with his first witness 2. The next he brings are Peter Bruis P. Bruis Arnoldus and Henricus three famous Waldenses they were of their Barbes that is Teachers I shall speak of the first and
to scatter saving Grace in this Nation which are if not raised yet fomented by Anabaptism And their Principle he conceives hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young-ones amongst whom usually the stream of converting Grace runs because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God his Covenant Church and Ordinances till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion Now whilst persons live loose from such engagements as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them 3. By confounding the World and the Church together which Christ hath separated Not so For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark as Mr. Ford calls it to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World what confounding is there in this Principle That not only they who do actually profess Faith in and Obedience to Christ but also the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptized and they only 7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1. Many of which and some of the worst attend the Baptism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome as Chrism Exorcism c. And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Argument against Infant-Baptism Mr. Geree tells him it was rather a Motive than a Reason against it to move peoples affections against the inconveniences following it rather than to convince the unlawfulness of it But that which is lawful in it self cannot reflect any scrûple of unlawfulness upon that which occasions it And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and separable from an act of Worship could cashier it then farewel Baptism it self Prayer Lords Supper and all that is Sacred for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and superstitious Heads and Hearts of Men taken occasion from them all to devise and practise it is so clear there needs no instances to be given 8. By being saith he such a Make-mate such a Bone of Contention and that among themselves too that own it as well as with those that oppose it The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness consider the beam that is in their own eyes certainly whilst they judg our principle condemnation is written in their own foreheads First how furiously do they contend among themselves What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul both of them for Baptizing Believers the former having published a little Book whose Title is Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful of which I have before hinted complains in the Epistle to the Reader That the Brethren of the Baptized way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion but did assault them for more than 16 years and as they had opportunity sought to break them in pieces meerly because they were not in their way all Baptized First He professeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptism though they feigned it but all that he asserted was That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible Saint and walketh according to his light with God And for this Orthodox position they charge him to be a Machivelian a Man Devilish Proud Insolent Presumptuous words saith the poor Man fitter to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections and tells him he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven p. 3. That he belyes all Expositors p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous top-ful of ignorance or prejudice and deserve no other answer than contempt p. 43. and then falls to prayer the Lord judg between us and this accuser to whom we shall say no more but the Lord rebuke thee And what sayes Bunyan to this in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism First that in his simple Opinion their rigid and Church-dividing disquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith he accuseth them for endeavouring and perswading him to break Communion with his Brethren tampering with others that their Seeds of division might take and prevailed so far as to rent and dismember some from them and that the judgment of God so followed their design that the presons which then they prevail'd upon became afterward a stink and reproach to Religion I find our Author falling upon this good Man two to one is odds and lashing him to the purpose for his last Book you have it at the end of his Treatise of Baptism He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities contradictions traducing the Wisdom of Christ hainous Errors and fundamental mistakes whose Principles saith he are presumptuous savouring of ignorance and folly contradicting the Wisdom Authority of Christ ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self-condemned and at last that he is one that pleaseth not God and is contrary to all Men which last must be understood with a limitation of all Men like himself But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that dissent from them Tantaene animis caelestibus irae Sure such language becomes not Christians Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side this is no good way to propagate it it needs not tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis The Wisdom which is from above is first pure then peaceable The Servant of the Lord must not strive but must be gentle towards all In meekness instructing those that oppose if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth 2 Tim. 2.24 25. But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule if they be set upon a point though controvertible they have such a fire of zeal within that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it Your Opinionists if they have Faith they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves but are infinitely desirous to propagate it and are the severest Censurers in the World Two other Antipaedobaptists viz. Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb being come off from that hide-bound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgment are also lasht in the Authors Postscript They have saith he both declined the Truth and their Books which were pen'd with great Judgment strength of Argument and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion shall rise up in Judgment against them without Repentance for declining the Truth so confident is the Author
that he speaks by way of Prophesy that what they have writ shall not only live as a Witness for God and his reproached Truths but as a living Testimony against themselves in their unreasonable and unrighteous departure from the same except they repent to all generations if these Man cannot appeal to Heaven touching their own integrity so thundring a Sentence must needs trouble their Consciences Moreover if I mistake not they are divided amongst themselves about the Administrator of Baptism as unwholsome word because unscriptural Pastors Teachers Ministers we read of but no Administrators some holding none but men in Office may give Baptism others that a private Man may do it especially in case of necessity and Mr. Tombes favours this Opinion Praecursor pag. 72. and he gives his reason for it viz. because all or most of the Ministers ordained in England are against Baptizing of Persons of years Sprinkled in Infancy and there lying upon them that see Infant-Baptism a corruption a necessity to be Baptized upon Profession of Faith there is a necessity that they be Baptized by Persons not Ordained I like a man that will speak plainly his mind I will be as plain in opening mine and I think I have hit upon the truth namely that the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must hold that unbaptized Persons ☞ may Baptize and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized persons or else they must disown their new Baptism and all their Ordinances and turn Seekers For the first of their Administrators must either Baptize himself or else was Baptized by some Person Baptized in Infancy that is with them by an unhaptized Person Lastly I want not Instances to shew how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted and must prepare my self for the hard Censures of my Antagonist and his Party and had it not been for the honour of truth and love that I bear unto it they should have gone on till Dooms-day though I believe God will shortly break the neck of their ridged Principle before I would have disturb'd their quiet and exposed my self to their ill-will It is sufficiently observed and deplored by sober Christians that are unaddicted to faction how turbulent this fort of men have alwayes been as in forreign parts so in our own Country in the propagation of their Opinion and how distastful it is to them to have any thing said against their way There is a sad passage quoted by the Author himself pag. 308. of his Treatise out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene viz. The Troops of Anabaptists that dwell in Friestand although they trouble not the Commonwealth they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts and what a stir they kept in Gemany with those Godly Ministers Luther Zwinglius Musculus contesting with them disturbing their Churches you shall hear shortly in our Animadversions upon the Authors historical part at the latter end of this discourse 9. By being an occasion saith he to stir up much bitter hatred wrath strife emnity persecution against those that oppose it How have they been followed with Stripes Imprisonments Confiscation yea Death it self Something of this may be layd at their own door as before hath been manifested in the persecution of the Tongue to which they are so much addicted but as for those Martyrs he speaks of that have suffered stripes imprisonment death we find very few of them in Fox his Martyrologie and none of them punished purely for opposing Infant-Baptism but the Antichristian Tenets of Rome Transubstantiation the Mass c. for which other Protestants suffered and some of them were put to death for asserting dangerous errors and for sedition here in England and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas as shall appear in the Historical Narrative 10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good by the Preface An unworthy calumny and spoken without the least ground of reason only because Mr. Baxter hath declared his single Judgment in some things in reference to Baptism in some of which he speaks not positively and dogmatically but as I remember he qualifies it with such expressions as I think so or suppose so and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it render Infant-Baptism it self a point that confirms the whole Antichristian Interest that is not derived thence and hath no reference to or favour for it and when many Paedobaptists differ from Mr. Baxter and are unsatisfied at those passages in his Christian Directory Absurdities 11. By ushering in great Absurdities viz. 1. That Persons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling This is no Paradox to those who have heard of John Baptists being Sanctified in the Womb. I could here turn the Author to several places in Mr. Tombes his Works where he dares not deny but Infan̄ts may have the seed of Grace but I have spoken to this before only take notice of that is his Praecursor pag. 13. It is not doubted but Infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect but how they attain Salvation is not so certain if by a Seed of Faith and Holiness without actual exercise the thing is more easie to conceive c. And again he saith There are Believers of two sorts either in the Seed or Fruit either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation in one of which wayes Infants are or may be Believers 2. That Persons may be visible Church-members before Conversion And is that such a wonder We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law why not under the Gospel when were they excluded 3. That Persons may Repent Believe and be Saved by the Faith of another We own no such thing 4. That Types and Shadows profit after the Antitype and substance is come introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge The weakness of this is discovered before proving the Covenant made with Abraham still to continue to Believers and their natural Seed as you may see towards the end of the 3d Chapter Part. 2. 5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptism new Church-Covenants are invented c. This is directed only against one sort of Paedobaptists called Independents whom he saith in point of order do err more than Prelate or Presbyter owning Infant-Baptism and yet denying them the right of Church-membership this is answered Chap. 6. Part 1. by shewing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members that is of the Universal Visible Church before Baptism and the reasons for it as also why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up till they make a serious Profession of that Faith into which they were Baptized and claim the priviledg of Communion Contradictions 12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice 1. By asserting that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes so uncapable of Regeneration This is a crambe bis cocta answered again and again